Jebel-Musa: The Scriptural Evidence

I have been so busy with NCYC and many other personal issues that I have not had time to continue this series I was working on earlier last month about the location of Mt. Sinai. For those of you who are new to the blog, I love biblical archaeology (please visit the "Where is the Ark of the Covenant?" section on the sidebar) and the question of the location of Mt. Sinai is an important one. Last time, we looked at the historical evidence in favor of the traditional site on the Sinai Peninsula, Jebel-Musa, on which sits St. Catherine's Monastery and which has been held to be Mt. Sinai from at least the 2nd century AD. Historically, this precedent is the only real evidence for the traditional Mt. Sinai, and it has stood the test of time mainly because no other site has been put forward until the 19th century. This time, we will look at evidence within the Scriptures themselves to see if we can pinpoint the site of Mt. Sinai.

One Scriptural argument in favor of the traditional site is where the Bible places the border of Egypt. According to Exodus, when the Israelites left Goshen and passed Succoth, they were "out of Egypt" (Ex. 13:8-20). Were Sinai further east in Arabia (as some say), then they Israelites would have had to go much further than just out of Goshen before they were "out of Egypt." Nadav Na'aman, a professor of Bible geography at Tel Aviv University, made an important point in an article on the "Brook of Egypt". He states, "Traditionally, in the eyes of the Egyptians the Nile or the Isthmus fringes were considered to be their northern boundary, the Sinai peninsula being regarded as part of Asia...Thus, when their scribes were concerned with the southern coastal area exclusively, they considered its border to be the southernmost limits of the urban settlements in this region, Sinai having the status of a kind of 'no-man's land'." This seems to be why Moses and the Israelites are able to travel out of Egypt by simply leaving Goshen, but are nevertheless not out of the reach of Pharaoh yet.

A very important consideration is the fact that Exodus 2:15-3:2 seems to place Mt. Sinai in the land of Midian, which all biblical scholars agree is in Arabia. This is the case because Moses' father in law, Jethro, is the High Priest of Midian (Ex. 3:1) and it was while watching his father-in-law's flocks that he had the epiphany of the burning bush at Mt. Horeb (which almost everybody considers to be the same as Mt. Sinai). While it is certain that Jethro was a Midianite, is it certain that Sinai was in Midian?

While it is true that Jethro was a Midianite, is is not the case that Sinai is in Midian. Exodus 3:1 clearly tells us where it was: "Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Midian; and he led his flock to the west side of the wilderness, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God." Here we see that Horeb, far from being in Midian, was on the otherside of a vast wilderness, which Scripture refers to as the "west side of the wilderness." West of Midian there is nothing other than the Sinai peninsula, which the Egyptians treated as a no-man's land. This would fit well with Scripture calling it a "wilderness." Perhaps our view of Sinai being in Midian has been colored a bit by the 1959 movie Ten Commandments, which places Jethro's tent at the foot of Mt. Sinai. The image is vivid; in my mind I can still see Charlton Heston gazing up at the movie Mt. Sinai from the tent of Jethro. But in reality, Horeb/Sinai seems to have been a long way west of Midian across a vast wilderness. This supports the traditional site.

An even keener insight into the location of Mt. Sinai in the Sinai Peninsula (and by the way, we ought to keep in mind that the peninsula was named for the mountain, not vice versa) is given by Exodus 18:27 and Numbers 10:30, both of which relate the visit of Jethro to Moses at Mt. Sinai. At the end of his visit, Jethro (whom we know to be from Midian), goes home. Scripture says in Ex. 18: "Then Moses let his father-in-law depart [from Mt. Sinai], and he went his way to his own land." If Mt. Sinai and Midian were in the same place, how could Jethro return "to his own land" if his own land was the same land Sinai was in? Numbers says: "I [Hobab] will not go, but I will depart [from Mt. Sinai] to my own land and to my kinsmen." Again, the land of Jethro (Midian) is completely separate from the land where Mt. Sinai is.

Let's recap: we know Sinai is not in Egypt, but east of it somewhere. We also know that Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, came from Midian (Arabia). We know that wherever Mt. Sinai was, it was not in the same land as Midian (Ex. 18:27, Num. 10:30). Finally, we do know from Exodus 3:1 that Mt. Sinai is on the west side of Midian across a great wilderness. Now, we must ask, what "wilderness" is east of Egypt but west of Arabia? The only plausible answer seems to be the peninsula that is now called the Sinai Peninsula and is the site of the traditional Mt. Sinai.

A challenge to the traditional location of Mt. Sinai is Galatians 4:25, when speaking of Hagar, St. Paul says, "Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia." This could be a great problem, until we realize that St. Paul does not use the same geopolitical terminology that we use today. He would have been speaking in Roman geopolitical terms. In Roman times, Arabia was a province that extended from the Nile into what is now lower Syria. The Roman province of Arabia at this time entirely included the Sinai Peninsula, so it is perfectly legitimate for Paul to say that Mt. Sinai is in "Arabia" but mean what we call Sinai. Interestingly enough, the Roman province of Arabia did not include the Saudi Arabian peninsula. Paul could not have had Saudi Arabia in mind when he said Mt. Sinai is in Arabia.

One final note. We see in Exodus 17:8-16 that the Amalekites were dwellers in the land where Israel was sojourning. We also know that the Sinai Peninsula was once part of Amalekite territory, again confirming that Mt. Sinai is in the Sinai Peninsula.


What does all of the evidence suggest? Last time, we saw that if Mt. Sinai is in the Sinai Peninsula, the mountain on which St. Catherine's is built (or one in that immediare range) is the only credible possibility. Scripture seems to place the mountain in the Sinai Peninsula, and Josephus confirms this when he says that "Moses went up to a mountain that lay between Egypt and Arabia, which was called Sinai...." (Against Apion, 2:2 [2:5]). This seem, at least at the outset, to confirm the traditional location.


Next time, we will look at an alternate site that some claim to be Mt. Sinai: Jebel-al-Lawz in southwest Saudi Arabia.

Fr. Zuhlsdorf & NCYC

Well, Unam Sanctam Catholicam has finally made it big! Check out Fr. Z's comments here on our write-up of NCYC. I would like to say that the aspirations of the kids who came to NCYC were not bad; wanting to come to a conference for 4 days to get closer to God is a wholesome and worthy thing, and many kids definitely received grace there and grew in an experiential relationship to God. The problem was not with the kids at all, but with many of the organizers, workshops and people involved who come to the event with a solid agenda that is anti-liturgical, anti-traditional and downright heterodox in some cases. Overall, the faith is presented in a very Protestantized way. A Protestant would have no problem with NCYC; they would applaud it. God is faithful: if kids come there seeking Him, then He will answer and grant them grace, ex opere operantis. But how much more could they have received had it been a Catholic conference faithful to the Magisterium and to Catholic Tradition?

Check out this promo video for NCYC (the same one featured on Fr. Z's blog) to see a little bit of what NCYC is. Below is a video of Fr. Tony Ricard, a keynote speaker at NCYC this year (this video is from 2004; I'm sure his 2007 address will be available soon enough). Notice the cult of personality, how much the person of Fr. Ricard enters into his talk, a factor which is eliminated in the TLM. The dance and talk you see below is not even half as intense as the one he gave in Columbus, but it did involve all the wild gesticulating:

I'm sure there will be much more discussion on NCYC in the future. I am truly thankful to God that kids grew closer to Christ and rededicated themselves to Him, I really am. I grew a bit as well. But it was not authentic Catholicism. It was wishy-washy, emotional, Protestantized Catholicism vacuumed clean of Tradition. I'm sorry if this offends some people, but this is the essential truth about it.

Nice Christmas Gift for Father

Looking for something to give Father this year for Christmas that he will really enjoy? How about this replica of the St. Remy chalice used in 12th century Cathedral of Reims, made especially for distribution of Holy Communion by intinction. Isn't it beautiful?

It is available partially or completely handmade in 925 sterling silver gold plate. It has an attractive hand chased outer cup and base with open arch design exposing the brightly polished inner cup and base. It is about 4 1/2 inches tall by 6 inches in diameter. Set with genuine stones (Amethysts, Lapis Lazulis, Green Venturines and Garnets) as well as adorned with cloisonné fire enamel, the St. Remy intinction set is a superb blend of beauty, quality and dignity of design. Best of all, it's practically a steal at $8,495.00! Why wait? Go to this website to order one today; you might want to get an extra one for yourself as well.

Divided Loyalties

Sometimes I think my kids have what is common called "selective hearing." This means that they hear and obey me when it is convenient for them, but when it is inconvenient, then they ignore me or claim to have not heard what I said. Most kids engage in this sort of thing at one time or another. And why do they do it? For the purpose of taxing the borders of the permissible as much as they possibly can. They push the envelope until they reach the point where you will not allow them to push it anymore. It has to do with authority and what one can get away with.

It is very obvious to me that many in the Church have selective hearing when it comes to obedience. However, selective hearing is not the only issue here. Another thing my kids do to me is they try to play mother and father against each other. "Dad, mom already said I can do it!" And then, when mom is against them, "Remember mom, dad is the boss of the family and he said we could do it." I think they know they are supposed to obey me ultimately, but they will very quickly place my wife between themselves and I if they think she supports their position better.

When I was at NCYC, I asked a woman flat out who deserved out obedience, the Pope or the bishops. Now of course ideally, obeidence to the Pope should be manifest by obedience to the bishops, who (in theory) should be with the Pope. We all know that is not the reality. So, in the event that there is a divergence between what is coming from the Vatican and what is coming from the USCCB, to whom does our allegiance belong? This woman unreservedly said to the USCCB. But if (and I can't imagine this would happen) the USCCB started taking more orthodox positions and the Vatican started taking heterodox positions, I imagine then she and her kind would all be trumpeting about their loyalty to the Pope in that situation. It has nothing to do with loyalty. It has to do with whoever happens to support your position. By the way, this is not just an issue with liberal or dissenting Catholics; even conservatives and Trads can do this, too.

Take this common example. When the issue of Medjugorje comes up, Medjugorje supporters tend to claim that there has never been a ban on pilgrimages to Medjugorje. When you point out that the local bishops of Mostar have repeatedly forbidden pilgrimages there for the past twenty-odd years, they shrug and say, "Yes, but those are just from the local bishop. The Vatican has never said we can't go there." Clearly in this case, the local bishop's authority counts for nothing at all, even though it falls to him to regulate pilgrimages in his diocese. They will settle for nothing less than a declaration by the Pope in this matter. By the way, the very reason the Vatican has not ruled on this yet is exactly because the Vatican understands that this is the bishop's role and unless the bishops request the Vatican to make a statement, they are not going to. Jesus said, "If they will not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one should rise from the dead." If people refuse to listen to the bishop in his own diocese, then would they listen to the Vatican?

On the other hand, when it comes to things like standing at communion or receiving on the tongue, liberals are very quick to point out that the norm in the United States is standing. When you point out that the Vatican has said that nobody can be denied communion for kneeling and that kneeling has always been the preferred method of reception, they say that nevertheless we must give obedience in these matters to the bishops (the same bishops they ignore in other matters) and that even though we are under Rome nominally (somebody actually said this to me), our first obedience lies with the bishop.

So which is it? Has anybody else experienced this sort of double-speak? Well, just for the record, let's remember that the Pope (not the USCCB) is the visible sign of unity for the Church and its authorative head on earth and that our communion with the Church is determined by our communion with the Bishop of Rome, and with those bishops who are in communion with Rome. The charism of infallibility was not given to the USCCB, but to Peter and his successors.

"Jobs Americans Won't Do"

American girls picking beans in the 1940's. Wait a minute! I thought that was a job "Americans won't do," wasn't it?

In looking at the problem of immigration in this country (and it is a problem), there are several arguments that are usually put forth by those in favor of unrestricted immigration (both legal and illegal) by which they attempt to support their point. I can think of four main ones right of the bat:

Reason 1) Immigration is good for the economy because they provide a source of labor for jobs that American's won't do.

Reason 2) Our country is made up of immigrants. Immigration is essential to what America is; we cannot keep out immigrants without being hypocrites.

Reason 3) Immigration is just, because the illegal immigrants who come here are only trying to better themselves and their families, something which they have a right to do.

Reason 4) The USCCB says it is a good and Christian thing to do to allow unrestricted immigration.

I am sure there are other reasons put forth as to why open immigration is a great thing, but I think these are the main ones (although I'm going to disqualify number 4 right out of the gate because the USCCB bases it's conclusion on the first four reasons, and because the USCCB holds absolutely no water with me. Therefore, I'm going to ignore the USCCB and hope it goes away). In this particular post I propose to deal only with Reason 1, which I think is the stupidest one but is one of the reasons most frequently cited. "Immigrants do jobs Americans won't do." My economics professor tried to sell us on this one today. I think this phrase was originally coined by President Bush a few years back when he was pushing his immigration reform (aka, amnesty) bill. Since then, spokespeople in favor of unrestricted immigration and illegal alien amnesty have ceaselessly repeated this mantra until people have started to believe it.

The rationale is that immigrants are willing to do tasks that are seen to be beneath the dignity of most Americans, jobs like bean picking, janitorial work, menial services and agricultural services. Since no American will do these jobs, we need the immigrants to do them. Beans need to be picked, yards mowed, strawberries harvested and floors mopped. Since immigrants are the only ones who will do these tasks (since they are jobs American's "won't do"), massive immigration is an obvious solution to the labor problem.

First of all, the problem with these "jobs Americans won't do" is not with the jobs themselves. It is not below the dignity of any American to do any work. You find any disgusting, filthy, difficult, unrewarding, socially taboo job out there and there is somebody willing to do it. Seriously! We have no lack of Americans willing to get knee deep in feces in order to suck out a septic tank; we have no shortage of of American carnie's who travel around with our circuses; we have no shortage of embalming specialists willing to work with dead bodies; we have no shortage of sea men willing to work on Alaskan oil rigs for months on end or sail the storm-tossed Great Lakes for four months out of the year during shipping season. We have no shortage of police willing to take up the thankless and life-threatening task of patrolling places like South Central L.A. Truly, Americans are willing to do any job. The question is one of pay, not one of the job being below Americans' dignity.

So what about the pay? Well, in all of the above mentioned jobs (shipping, policing, cleaning septic) there is a degree of skill involved that demands a skilled worker, who usually commands more for his services than an unskilled worker. And thus Americans are still found in these jobs. Our standard and price of living here is ridiculously high, and so an American worker (especially if he has a family) must make massive amounts of money to support himself, not because he is greedy, but just because everything is so expensive. Now, the so-called "jobs Americans won't do" are all low-skill jobs. They have always paid low; janitors always got paid less than policemen. But at least there was a janitor's union that saw to it that they could command at least a living wage. Unskilled jobs always pay less, but until the last few decades, an American could still make a sufficient living from unskilled labor.

In comes the immigrants. Because they are unskilled, unskilled labor is the only kind of work they can do. They always are willing to work for less than an American because they do not share our living standards and because much of the money is sent back to their home country. When they enter the workforce, they drive the price of labor down. This phenomenon has been so well documented in American history that I am surprised anybody still questions the fact that immigration drives down the price of labor. So, whereas public school janitors used to get paid $12-$15 per hour, now school districts can privatize and hire immigrant labor who charge only $7 - $9 per hour, if that. No American can support himself on that wage. Thus, janitorial work for the public schools soon becomes a job Americans won't do. They can't anymore. Immigrants came in with a wage advantage that nobody could compete with, drove the wages down until only other immigrants could afford to take the jobs, and then the job becomes a job American's won't do.

I would be happy picking strawberries! I really would. I've been a janitor; it's not bad work. It is not that I won't do them, but I won't do them for an immigrant's wages. Raise the wage, and Americans will do the job. It is certainly true that there are jobs Americans can't do, but the jobs have become that way because of immigration, and obviously we do not want an economy built on jobs that American's can't do. Our economy cannot sustain itself on that philosophy. That is what needs to be rectified. But let's stop all this nonsense about jobs Americans won't do. It makes it look as if we think we're too good to work. I know a million people who would gladly take a menial job, but not at $5.75 per hour.

I can think of one job that American elected officialts won't do: deporting illegal aliens. This seems to be the one job that no American elected official wants to touch with a ten foot pole.

Feast of St. Josaphat, Bishop and Martyr

I imagine that it might not be coincidence that my colleague has posted an article out of St. Josaphat's TLM community on the feast day of St. Josaphat according to the 1962 calendar. My wife and I were blessed to hear Mass there regularly before coming here to Austria. As such, I wish a happy patronal feast day to all of our dear friends at St. Josaphat parish in Detroit! We miss you all very much.

St. Josaphat, pray for us! And let us all join our meager prayers to his for the return of the schismatic Greek Churches to the one true Church of Christ founded on St. Peter.

In an almost completely unrelated vein, I stumbled across some words of the Venerable Pope Pius XII (some of which I have read before as I'm sure many of have) that gave me pause. It's not everyday that one encounters such prophetic wisdom.

The words of Pius XII (then Secretary of State of Pius XI) to his friend Jean Guitton as recorded by his biographer Msgr. Roche, Pius XII Devant L’Histoire, pp. 52-53:

Imagine, dear friend, that communism be only the most visible of the means of subversion against the Church and against the tradition of divine revelation, then we will assist at the invasion of all that is spiritual, philosophy, science, law, teaching, the arts, the press, literature, the theatre and religion. I am obsessed by the confidences of the Virgin to the little Lucy of Fatima. This obstinacy of the good Lady in front of the dangers which threaten the Church is a divine warning against the suicide represented by the alteration of the faith in its liturgy, its theology, in its soul. I hear all around me innovators who want to dismantle the Holy Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, throw away her ornaments, give her a remorse of her historical past. Well my dear friend, I have the conviction that the Church of Peter must assume her past or she will dig her own grave. A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt like Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God, that his Son is a mere symbol, a philosophy like many others and in the churches Christians will seek in vain the red light where God waits for them, like Magdalen weeping before the empty tomb, 'Where have they taken Him?'

Pope Pius XII, a few days before he died: The day the Church abandons her universal tongue [Latin] is the day before she returns to the catacombs.

Different forms of the Extraordinary Rite

Check out this article put out by the Detroit Latin Mass community (St. Josaphat's) that briefly describes several of the ways the Tridentine Mass can be celebrated. What is the difference between a Low Mass, a Low Mass in the Simple Form, a Missa Cantata, a Solemn High Mass, a Low Mass said by a Bishop, a Pontifical Solemn Mass at the Throne, a Pontifical Mass at the Faldstool and a Dialogue Mass (no, not the bad kind of dialogue)? Read this pleasantly brief article (1 page) and find out.

Other blogger's take on NCYC

Hey, check out this post from Zach the Seminarian on NCYC and other similar youth oriented rallies that are full of emotion and enthusiasm. While I don't necessarily agree with everything said on this post, I think it is a good read in general and he has links to some interesting videos. Check it out.

Hindus terrorized and killed by their false monkey gods

Have you followed up on this amazing story of how rhesus monkeys are running wild in New Delhi and have even led to a few deaths (among them a prominent minister)? Apparently, these monkeys have urbanized and are a huge problem in India's large cities. They have bitten people and even tried to steal babies. But can the authorities get rid of them? Nope. Why not? You guessed it: Hindus believe that monkeys are sacred (the incarnation of the god Hanuman) and protest their capture. Here are two articles, one from Breitbart and one from Reuters, on the menace of the Monkey God. Those monkeys need to learn how to dialgue more peacefully with their Hindu brothers!

AD or CE?

How many of you out there who love our Lord and look to the Incarnation as the center of human history have been outraged by the sly and insidious substitution of C.E. and B.C.E. (Common Era and Before Common Era) in place of the traditional B.C. and A.D. (Before Christ and Anno Domini)? The CE/BCE usage is getting ever more common in secular circles and it is even gaining ground among Christians for some reason I can't fathom.

Ostensibly, the rationale for preferring CE/BCE is that it does not have the religious overtones that BC/AD does (another premise is that we cannot be certain that Christ actually was born in 1 AD, but I think this is irrelevant). This is a shallow argument that does nothing to get to the heart of the matter. Just substituting one set of letters for another makes no sense. The divison between BC and AD occurs in the transfer of the year from 1 BC to 1 AD (there being no year 0 ). If we just change the letters to BCE/CE, we may have changed what the abbreviations are, but we are still drawing attention to a split in history that occured in the 27th year of the reign of Augustus. What else of note happened in that year to merit history being split in two? Well, Tiberius put down a revolt in Germania. Silk made its first appearance in Rome. Gaius Caesar and L. Aemelius Paulus are appointed consuls, and Areius Paianeius became archon in Athens. Emperor Ping of the Han came to power in China, and Ovid composed the Metamorphoses. Nothing else of any global or cosmic significance occurred that year, only the birth of Christ. Even if we mean "Common Era" by CE, we are still drawing attention to the same single year and thus to the same pivotal event.

In his most recent E-letter, Karl Keating quotes a book, "History of Time" by Leofranc Holford-Strevens, in which the arguments in favor of BC/AD (and the reasons why BCE/CE is stupid and should be rejected by all Catholics) are set forth. I thought it worth requoting the entire article here. Enjoy.

The night before last I finished a little book titled "The History of Time." The author is Leofranc Holford-Strevens, and the book is part of the "Very Short Introduction" series published by Oxford University Press. "The History of Time" discusses how our notions of hours, days, and years developed, and it goes into considerable (and, to me, often unfollowable) detail about variants in calendars over the centuries: such commonplaces as the Metonic cycle used in Alexandrian and Western Easter tables, intercalary weeks, epacts, epagomenal days, indictions, and the non-accession-year system.

I learned that January was chosen as the first month of the year (the position had been held by March for a long time) because it was named after Janus, the Roman god who faced forwards and backwards, looking toward the upcoming year and back at the year just ended. I learned that not until Britain adopted the New Style calendar in 1752 did the English New Year shift from March 25 to January 1.

I learned that some early Christians kept a fixed date for Easter, either March 25 or April 6, even if that meant Easter fell other than on Sunday. And I learned that, not to be outdone, in 1926 the League of Nations recommended that Easter be observed on the Sunday after the second Saturday in April. The proposal went nowhere.

All in all, "The History of Time" is an informative if, for the calendar-impaired, often a confusing book. Near the end the author brings up something he mentions otherwise only in his preface. It is something that bothers me and perhaps bothers you: the use of C.E. in place of A.D. and of B.C.E. in place of B.C.

In more and more publications we're seeing the traditional terms A.D. (Anno Domini = Year of the Lord) and B.C. (Before Christ) being dropped in favor of C.E. (Common Era) and B.C.E. (Before the Common Era).

Here is what Holford-Strevens notes about the system used to refer to the time line:

"The Christian era is too well established to be challenged for its religious origin; in China, indeed, where Christianity has never been more than a minority religion, it was made official by the anti-religious Communists. However, the name has come under attack; ... amongst English-speakers the term 'Common Era', already standard in Jewish usage ... has become widespread in American academic writing."

And not just in academic writing. I'm seeing C.E. and B.C.E. used more and more widely. But to continue:

"Even some Christians have accepted it, whether in an anti-proselytizing spirit or because there are no grounds for believing the era's epoch to be the true date of the event that it commemorates."

Let me recapitulate. A.D. and B.C. are being dropped by some Christians, for two reasons. Some are concerned that by insisting on the traditional usage, they might be perceived as proselytizing, and they think everyone should use a "neutral" designation for years. This strikes me as misplaced courtesy.

If the Incarnation really happened, then it was the most momentous event of all time, far more important than any emperor's reign, the establishment of any polity, or the occurrence of any battle. Ontologically, nothing else could come close to the Incarnation in importance for the human race. Such an event would be a worthy--in fact, the most worthy--demarcation of human history: Before Incarnation, After Incarnation.

This would be true whether or not most people living today believed it to have occurred. Even if Christians were an infinitesimal minority of the world's population, rather than a quarter or so of it, the Incarnation would be the most important event that ever happened. To say so publicly is not proselytizing.

So I think the concern about proselytizing is misplaced. So too for the concern about whether ancient calculations were spot on or not. Most scholars say that Christ was born probably not at the end of 1 B.C. but around 6 B.C. I won't discuss now the reasons for that conclusion, but, if true, it would mean that our dating system is off by about five years and that A.D. 2007 really ought to be A.D. 2012. But so what? In this matter, an approximation is sufficient. We cannot know with certainty the year of Christ's birth, since ancient records are sparse. Should we therefore say that we can't construct our calendar around his birth? This would be taking Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to a ludicrous point.

Let me go back to Holford-Strevens' paragraph. We left off here:

"Even some Christians have accepted it, whether in an anti-proselytizing spirit or because there are no grounds for believing the era's epoch to be the true date of the event that it commemorates. Nevertheless, if it does not commemorate the birth of Christ, it has no business to exist at all, for no other event of world-historical significance took place in either 1 B.C. or A.D. 1."

Let me unpack that for you. The author says that if the dating system we use doesn't commemorate Christ's birth, then it makes no sense to use this particular system at all. Changing the designations from B.C. and A.D. to B.C.E. and C.E. reduces to a sleight of hand. After all, what is the "Common Era" based on? On the birth of Christ and on nothing else. If on the birth of Christ, then why not say so candidly? You can say so even if you aren't a Christian. You don't have to believe in Christ's divinity to believe that he was born at a certain time (even if we can't pinpoint that time). You don't have to be a follower of his to acknowledge that, historically, many people have been followers and that our modern civilization largely is a product of what those people believed and did. You even could be an outright opponent of Christianity and still admit that the religion you excoriate has been more important in the history of the world than has any other institution and that that fact alone is sufficient reason to based a calendar around its Founder's birth.

In the preface to "The History of Time," Holford-Strevens explains that "the traditional terms A.D. and B.C. have been retained, in preference to C.E. and B.C.E., for two reasons: adopting the latter causes the maximally distinguished 1 B.C. and A.D. 1 to become the minimally distinguished 1 B.C.E. and C.E. 1; and although, as a date for the birth of Jesus Christ the epoch is almost certainly wrong, it remains a commemoration of that event, and no other event of the same year can be proposed as an alternative of world significance.

Attractive, especially in a globalized age, as a purely secular era may appear, the Christian era cannot be made secular by denying its origin."I don't know Holford-Strevens' religion, but I can't think of many Catholic leaders who could phrase the argument so well.

NCYC, part II

The art work of NCYC participant Br. Mickey O'Niell McGrath, entitled "The Assumption." He claims his art is an intentional effort to destroy traditional images of Jesus, Mary and the saints.

I need to get through all this while it is still fresh in my mind! Anyhow, every event we went to in the arena was almost like a Protestant praise service (contrary to what blogger Lisa said in her comment to my original post, there were plenty of Protestant praise songs, like "I'm Trading My Sorrows" and "Waves of Mercy"). We listened to songs, clapped, danced around. The basic message was "God loves you." It was a good message, and many kids went back home feeling the great love of God. But none of them learned a damned thing.

To NCYC's credit, Mass was offered every day, and Confession and Eucharistic Adoration were going on continually (I made sure my kids went every day). But the adoration chapel frequently had many empty rows of seats; the comedy club, on the other hand, was packed and we had to sit on the floor.

On Day 2, the emcee Steve Angrisano told the 20,000 assembled kids, "Sometimes you might feel like you are not holy and that God doesn't care about you. But it's not true; you're all holy, every one of you, no matter what." I guess we are redefining holy as "the state of being loved by God" (which would apply universally) instead of eminent sanctity. Oh well. Later on that night, Fr. Tony Ricard of New Orleans (whom I can only describe as a Catholic version of Chris Rock) told the kids, "In the Mass we pray, 'Lord, I am not worthy to receive You, but only say the word and I shall be healed.' Well, God has said the Word. He said it all in His Son. You are worthy. You are worthy. So when you go somewhere, you walk in with your head high like you own the place." This Fr. Tony is a kind of celebrity in New Oreleans; in fact, he had his own bobble-head. After his talk, he blessed us and immediately after the blessing, he said, "Kick it!" and a hip-hop song started playing while he and several youth from his parish started dancing around like MC Hammer. Here's a video of some of Fr. Tony's antics.

Tony Melendez, a man born without arms who plays guitar with his feet, gave a very good talk on patient endurance of suffering, on realizing that God has a plan for all of us and on loving the unlovable. Then he played a tribute to John Paul II. People were so emotional over it that you'd think JPII had only died last week or something. By the way, John Paul was mentioned frequently throughout the event (we watched musical montage-tribute to him) and speakers kept referring to him as "the Great." We even had to say a prayer in Polish because, as Steve Angrisano said, "It was the language of John Paul the Great." Benedict XVI was quietly ignored. He was only mentioned one time during the event: at the closing Mass where his name was said during the Eucharistic liturgy.

That day we went to a workshop called "Catholic and Just" which was on Catholic social teaching. The speakers were neo-Marxists who insinuated that Global Warming was as serious as abortion. My kids and I got up to leave and a large woman yelled, "You're just leaving cuz' you don't want to hear the truth!" That night we went to what was billed as "evening prayer" but was actually this weird dance with the lights off where these kids all were twirling glow sticks in the shape of a human body while this crazy music was playing. Bizarre.

On day 3 we listened to Renee Bondi, a quadriplegic who had broken her neck while sleep walking, of all things. She gave a very great talk on finding God's will even in suffering. But that day, we went to another workshop entitled "Being Yourself with Mary and the Saints" put on by Br. Mickey O'Niell McGrath. This monk (who wore a business suit and did nothing but promote his work the whole time) was absolutely awful. Aside from having to look at his terrible art work, the most disheartening part of his presentation was some of the things that came out of his mouth. Here is just a small chronicle of some of the things he said. I wrote them down verbatim as they came out of his mouth, knowing that my Unam Santcam fans would want to know about them:

"Of course, we believe that Christ is the Way to God, but since Vatican II the Church teaches that the Word of God comes to all cultures."

"It is my mission to banish from the Church all images of Jesus and Mary where they are portrayed perfect and spotless."

"Judgment is not from God. People who judge others have never read the Bible" (if judgment is not from God, how will God judge anybody?)

"My parents are canonized saints."

"You know, Mary and Joseph were not Catholic. They were Jews." (this shows a misunderstanding of the relationship between Judaism and Catholicism, which I will not go into here)

"St. Terese of Lisieux is my favorite saint because she never mentions the word "sin." (actually, I did a word search and found that she does use the word 14 times in "Story of a Soul")

"Have you ever seen that "Infant Jesus of Prague" image? My friends and I like to call that the "Barbie Jesus."

As you can see, this clown was way off the edge. We walked out of this one, too. Click here to see some more of Br. McGrath's artwork.

At the end of day 3 we went to a huge Mass in the arena with about 70 deacons, an equal number of priests and 6 bishops officiating. The altar was draped with tie-dye and multi-colored sheets. The bishop, Matthew Clark of Rochester, New York, gave a pretty good homily, but the music was awful (full of drums, Spanish, etc). There were no other obvious abuses other than those common to the Novus Ordo, but thankfully there was no liturgical dancing, no consecration of the wine before it is poured and amazingly, no extraordinary ministers (only because they had 70 priests present). When it was time for communion, I received kneeling on my tongue and the priest who was distributing it to me was so flabbergasted that he stared at me for a moment before finally stammering, "Body of Christ."

In the hotel that night, I was getting on an elevator when I overheard a Youth Director down the hall tell her kids, "A lot of the stories you hear in the Bible are just that: stories, nothing else." As the elevator doors closed around me, I yelled "False!" as loud as I could and then was wisked away to safety by the elevator.

Among the Youth Directors there, there was a universal disdain for Latin and for the Old Mass. When one woman asked why the youth were so interested in the Old Mass, another Youth Director scornfully said, "Because of Pope Benedict." Ah, how they longed for the days of John Paul! I asked why they did not like the Old Mass and they said, "There was so much mystery; it was way too vertical! It wasn't nearly horizontal enough." I despise these terms, but I asked them if they were aware that Cardinal Arinze had said that horizontalism did damage to Catholic faith and worship. Do you know what they said in response?

"Who's Cardinal Arinze?"

Shocked but not surprised, I explained who he was, to which they just said, "Oh, he's in Rome," as if that fact made his opinion irrelevant. "We obey the U.S. Bishops," they replied. I let the issue die and went to take a bath. While relaxing in the warm bath, I smiled as I remembered the number one sign you might be a traditionalist from another blog: "You laugh whenever someone mentions the USCCB."

The whole event was very sad. Many of my youth grew in their faith and went back to confession after many months, but there was nothing specifically Catholic about the whole thing. It could have been "Aquire the Fire" or "Crossroads" or any other Protestant event and you would not be able to tell the difference. I did meet an excellent Salesian priest from New Jersey to whom I made a great confession, and I met two Franciscan sisters from Texas who blessed me immensely (after we were done talking, I thanked them for wearing their habits). Adoration was wonderful, and they even had some Latin on (but then I found out it was a Taize CD). But overall, it was disheartening and certainly not worth the $430 each kid shelled out.

What was the most rewarding part of the trip? Hmm; it's a tie between the day I hit a beach ball out into the crowd from the nose-bleed section of the arena or the night I farted in a crowded elevator.

I will post more this week on some of the more specific insights I gained from NCYC.

Avoid the National Catholic Youth Conference

Well, it is good to be back from Columbus and even better to be back in the blogging community where I can breathe the fresh, incense-thick air of Catholicism. I will not call it "traditional" Catholicism, because the Catholicism I witnessed while I was at NCYC in Columbus was not really Catholicism at all (it was more of a pan-Christianity) and I have come to the greater realization that the Catholicism that the traditionalist movement represents is not traditional Catholicism but is simply Catholicism, pure and simple. At least I know that what I witnessed in the three days I was at the National Catholic Youth Conference will give me ample blogging material for weeks to come.

A few disclaimers before I go into NCYC: first, NCYC is not a monolithic event, but a huge convention in which over 500 separate organizations participate. Therefore, I will refrain as much as possible from making blanket statements about the entire event. I met wacko liberal-commies there, and some really good priests and nuns as well. Second, I will point out the good as well as the bad and let the reader decide. Finally, NCYC is sponsored and organized by spiritandsong.com, GIA and OCP, the most liberal liturgical music companies out there. The following will be a brief run down of what I saw and heard.

On day 1, our arrival was immediately marked by sorrow as we learned that a 16 year old girl, Veronica, from the Diocese of Las Vegas was struck dead by a car while walking down the street at night. Please pray for her soul.

We went that evening to the Columbus arena where 20,000 kids from youth groups around the nation were gathered. In the arena was a giant stage shaped like a boat. We were entertained by "Righteous B," a Catholic rap group from New York (I think) consisting of four or five middle aged white males. One of their songs went like this:

Give me a"C." Give me a "A." Give me an "F." Give me a "L," I," "C," and what's that spell? "Caflic." What's that spell? "Caflic."

At another point, they said they were going to teach us a Latin word and I was happy, until they said the word: "Whoohah." This "Latin word," they told the audience, meant, "I love Jesus with all my heart," and then they got the whole crowd to go "Whoohah! Whoohah!" I laughed because I realized that since nobody knows Latin anymore, the kids probably thought it was a real Latin phrase.

Then we watched an interpretive story of Noah's Ark performed by a bunch of female dancers, mostly scantily glad and involving much bootie-shaking. Then we had to listen to a speech by Bob McCarty, president of National Federation of Catholic Youth Ministries (NFCYM). In his speech, in reference to the girl Veronica who had been killed the night before, he made the following statement. It was so audacious that I wrote it down verbatim:

"By the power vested in me as the president of the NFCYM, and with great arrogance, I proclaim Saint Veronica a saint of the universal Church and declare that she is living with the saints in the Kingdom of Heaven."

Talk about an automatic canonization! He had 20,000 people in front of him and he had the opportunity to ask for prayers for her soul. Did he? Nope. He proclaimed her a saint to the uproarious applause of everybody. Later, I took some kids aside and told them that they needed to pray for her soul, despite the President of NFCYM's canonization. Thankfully, her name was mentioned at a Mass later that weekend.

Then we listened to some weird song about the Holy Spirit renewing us, in which several kids came up and each sung a lyric. The song was weird because they did not call on any of the traditional names for the Holy Spirit, but said lines like this:

Waters of the earth, rivers flowing deep: renew us.
Crystals of rain, falling from the clouds: renew us.

We all knew it was meant to refer to the Holy Spirit, but nothing in the lyrics actually said anything about the Spirit. They were all ambiguous New Age type terminologies. Then we had to listen to this troupe of kids come up and tell us where they were from. But they just said a bunch of estoteric mumbo-jumbo, like, "I am from the rain of a thousand hopes," and "I come from deep thoughts and living dreams." It was very odd.

Throughout the entire presentation, they kept using Spanish and African phrases. The funny thing was when the emcee, Steve Angrisano, referred to a prayer in the "African" language and a kid next to me said, " I didn't know "African" was a language." Every day we were called to prayer in the morning with the following verse, sung with tribal drumbeats and much clapping:

Nza mu ra nza! Nza mu ra nza! Ana kona waku fa na na na ye! Ana kona waku fa na na na ye!

They told us what it meant, but I can't remember. A person sitting by me thought this was an appropriate moment to take a jab at Latin and said, "See what happens when you pray in foreign languages! Nobody understands!" Of course, if all our morning prayers had been prayed in this language for centuries, I think we would have a better grasp on it. But I didn't bother to explain. Every song we sung had every alternate verse in Spanish as well. One of the kids with in my group, without any prompting by me, remarked, "Boy, the Latin-haters sure love Spanish." It was a very witty and true observation.

That was all just day one. I'll update you on days two and three later. It gets even better.

CLICK HERE FOR PART TWO OF THIS POST!

NEW! Updates and other posts relating to 2007 NCYC below!
The sad state of Catholic Youth Ministry (with NCYC footage)

Is this Catholic Ecclesiology?

Other Blogger's Take on NCYC

Jesus of Nazareth

Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration
by Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)
Trans. Adrian J. Walker
New York: Doubleday, 2007

Last night I finished reading this first book published by Joseph Ratzinger since his elevation to the See of Peter. Because he expressly desired to publish this book as a private theologian rather than as an expression of the Church's magisterium, I will refer to the author as Joseph Ratzinger.

Ratzinger's purpose throughout is to lead his readers to an encounter with Christ, the real historical Christ, as He is presented in the Gospels. There is in fact no distinction between the so-called "Jesus of history" and "Christ of faith." A twofold thread runs throughout the book. Ratzinger stresses the necessity of understanding the figure of Jesus in light of His unique "face-to-face" relationship with the Father and in light of His redemptive mission. These two are in fact intimately linked; the Person and the Work of Jesus cannot be separated from one another.

Of great importance generally speaking, but of less interest to me personally, are Ratzinger's repeated contradictions of (or corrections to) common threads of historico-critical biblical interpretation. While not in the least rejecting this method (in fact, he even accepts, for example, the "fact" that Isaiah 40-66 was written centuries after Isaiah 1-39; this despite the fact the then-magisterial Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1908 gave strong indications to the contrary) Ratzinger points out repeatedly and convincingly the limitations of historico-criticism in theology.

Of more interest to me personlly is Ratzinger's emphasis throughout on the doctrine of the Atonement. A systematic treatment of this topic is, of course, far beyond the scope of this work, but Ratzinger makes one facet of the Redemption in particular a point of emphasis. Namely, what it means for Christ to "bear the burden" of our sins. This emphasis is strongly marked right at the beginning of the book. Speaking of Christ's baptism, Ratzinger writes,

"Looking at the events in light of the Cross and Resurrection, the Christian people realized what happened: Jesus loaded the burden of all mankind's guilt upon his shoulders; he bore it down into the depths of the Jordan. He inaugurated his public activity by stepping into the place of sinners. His inaugural gesture is an anticipation of the Cross" (18).

Again, in chapter 2 on the temptations of Christ, Ratzinger remarks that, "He must recapitulate the whole of history from its beginnings - from Adam on; he must go through, suffer through, the whole of it, in order to transform it" (26). This "suffering through" is an important phrase for Ratzinger. The point seems to be that in order for guilt to really be healed from within (in contrast to two alternatives: retaliation, in which the guilty party is simply punished, and on the other hand, a simple amnesty; although in both cases justice is in a certain sense restored, in neither case has the guilty party really been healed interiorly) the guilty party has to "suffer through" his guilt, that is, he must re-experience his sin from the perspective of love. He must re-live, in a certain sense, his sin, this time seeing it for the evil that it is, stripped of its veneer of goodness. Simply put, we are speaking of contrition - which in its root means being "crushed" by the weight of sin. To return to Christ, then, Ratzinger seems to be saying that He "bears the burden" of our sins, He allows himself to be "crushed" by them, inasmuch as He experiences their wickedness from the perspective of love. In I may put it so, He experiences the "contrition" that we should have felt but are inadequate to feel.

This aspect of the redemption wrought by Christ receives its fullest treatment in Ratzinger's reflections on the fifth petition of the Pater noster - forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. Here Ratzinger asks, "What is forgiveness?"

"What is forgiveness, really? What happens when forgiveness takes place? Guilt is a reality, an objective force; it has caused destruction that must be repaired. For this reason, forgiveness must be more than a matter of ignoring, of merely trying to forget. Guilt must be worked through, healed, and thus overcome. Forgiveness exacts a price - first of all from the person who forgives. He must overcome within himself the evil done to him; he must, as it were, burn it interiorly and in so doing renew himself. As a result, he also involves the other, the trespasser, in this process of transformation, of inner purification, and both parties, suffering all the way through and overcoming evil, are made new. At this point, we encounter the mystery of Christ's Cross" (158-59).

We could say that in this book we also encounter the mystery of Christ's Cross; we encounter it and it remains nonetheless mysterious, at least to this poor reader. It is a mystery, however, that I have been assigned to penetrate (term paper topic) to the extent that my frail nature will allow by mid-December! Deus miserere me!

St. Martin of Tours, Bishop, Confessor

M for SAINT MARTIN, in Mitre and Cope
(The bishop of Tours, not Saint MARTIN the Pope);
His father, a soldier, disliked and despised
The True Faith, and prevented his being baptized
By making him serve in the army of Gaul,
Though he wasn't that sort of a soldier at all.
At Amiens one day, in the wind and the sleet,
He was stopped by a beggar who begged in the street;
He'd no money to give, so he made a great tear
In his cloak and gave part to the beggar to wear.
That night in a vision Saint MARTIN was shown

Our LORD as He reigns on His heavenly throne;

He was wearing the piece that the beggar had worn!
For CHRIST takes what we give to the poor and forlorn.
(Alphabet of Saints by Msgr. Robert Hugh Benson).

The above is my 18 month old's absolute favorite book. My wife and I love it too. It was written around the beginning of the 20th century by the son of the Archbishop of Canterbury turned Catholic priest (that caused quite an uproar). If you have kids, I can't recommend it highly enough. He also wrote two companion volumes (which we haven't yet acquired) called A Child's Rule of Life and Old Testament Rhymes.

II Class Feast of the Dedication of the Basilica of Our Savior

(my own picture from a trip to Rome in 2005)

The Mother and Mistress of all Churches throughout the world, the Church of St. John Lateran, or the Archbasilica of the Most Holy Savior, was the first publicly consecrated. It was built by Constantine, the first Christian Emperor and consecrated by Pope St. Sylvester I on November 9, 324.

The Church of St. John Lateran is the highest ranking of the four patriarchal basilicas of Rome. Its name derives from the fact that the site of the Church was in acient times occupied by the palace of the Roman family of the Laterani. It was originally dedicated to our Savior, the "Basilica Salvatoris." Its further dedication both to St. John the Baptist and to St. John the Evangelist came at a later date due to the adjoining Benedictine monastery of Ss. John and John. Catholic Encyclopedia article: Saint John Lateran.

Five ecumenical councils were held at the Lateran (1123, 1139, 1179, 1215, 1512-17). The Fourth of these is justly famous for its exposition of the dogma of Transubstantiation. Perhaps on his return Boniface, much the more knowledgeable historian than I, will be able to offer some insight into the historical importance of each of these councils.